The Conjuring is a fairly standard-issue Hollywood horror possession film. There's a dog that does the usual thing dogs do in horror films. There's a doll that does what dolls usually do in horror films. There's some eerie TV static, some doors banging, some ghost hunters with motion detectors and UV lights, and some creepy ghosts who appear on cue when you expect to least expect them, complete with ominous music and the spooky makeup that all ghosts wear so you can identify them. And there's an eerie whispered catch phrase, because the supernatural loves memes (in this case it's "look what you made me do.")

Related Story

There's only one difference between this film and all those other films.

(Dramatic pause. Eerie whisper voice.)

This one... is real.

When I say "it's real," I mean several things. First, and most obviously, the film is based to some degree on real events. It tells the story of the Perron family, who moved into a supposedly haunted farmhouse in Rhode Island in 1971. The Perrons contacted well-known ghost hunters Ed and Lorrain Warren to help them rid their home of evil spirits (after which Ed began the long journey through the netherworld of development hell to bring the story to the big screen.)

But the "reality" of the story in the end has little to do with its no doubt extremely loose basis in fact, and a lot to with its thematic concerns. Which is to say, the movie is in a lot of ways less focused on the supernatural than it is on its own reality, and on demonstrating its own reality.

Some of these demonstrations are quite charming--like the period hairstyles, or the selection of the relatively-homely-by-Hollywood-standards Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston to play the Perron parents. Other assertions of truthiness, though, are less enjoyable. There are, of course, the newspaper clippings and actual photos that play over the end credits. And then, at the other end of the film, before we even get to our main haunted house, we have scenes of the Warrens (Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson) working other cases, and answering questions in lecture halls to underline their expertise and truthiness. We even see a case later on where they ostentatiously prove that the haunting is just some creaky floorboards and uneven heating, to show that they don't certify just any ghosts. Hauntings overwhelmingly have a "rational explanation," Lorraine assures the relieved family, before we trundle back off to the Perrons and their checklist of movie horrors.

In some sense, that checklist works against the reality. The situations and the spooks and the characters (noble ghost fighters, loving mother, confused but sturdy dad) are all so well-worn that it's hard to take the suggestion that we're seeing "truth" as anything but a deliberate joke. You half expect the next door to bang open to reveal a prostitute with a heart of gold, or a crusty but cunning police chief. Why don't they just throw in all the tropes and be done with it?

The thing is, the assertion "this is true" is every bit as much a familiar tent-pole of exorcism horror as the chair lifting off the floor or the catch phrases. Some recent films, like The Last Exorcism or the excellent The Devil Inside, use the found-footage genre to get that requisite feeling of verite. The Conjuring isn't that clever; its claim to truth boils down to repetition and assertion--and maybe the odd bodily assault on the skeptical police guy to show him the error of his ways.

The pretense to realism can be enjoyable as part of horror. In 'The Conjuring,' it's an incessant theme that Director James Wan mistakenly seems to believe can carry the entire film.

The Conjuring, then, is not convincingly real. This isn't a bad thing in itself; hardly anybody goes to a horror film expecting to see documentary realism any more than you listen to campfire ghost stories to get factual information about guys with hooks for hands. It's the pretense to realism, not the realism per se, that's enjoyable.

Or at least, the pretense to realism can be enjoyable as part of a horror movie. In The Conjuring, though, the pretense is more than just a part--it's an insistent and constant drumbeat, an incessant theme that Director James Wan mistakenly seems to believe can carry the entire film. On the strength "based on a true story", he has forsworn interesting characters, an inventive plot, and memorable villains.

As a result, all we're left with at the conclusion is some sentimentality and a real quote from the real Ed Warren warning us that demonic powers are real and our moral choices matter. Which may or may not be the case. But if evil and moral choices were what the filmmakers cared about, I wish they'd made a movie about them. Instead, The Conjuring is dedicated to the completely pointless task of encouraging its viewers over and over, in various ways, to pretend that the derivative nonsense on screen actually happened. That isn't scary. It's not even startling. It's just banal.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.